Talk:John Wayne/Archive 4

White supremacy
Should the white supremacist category be removed? I would figure it should stay given that we have a reliably sourced quote of him saying he believes in white supremacy. But I wanted to start a discussion so we can come to some sort of consensus. Alexander Levian (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove it. At the very least, it's definitely non-defining. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain I understand what you mean by non-defining. It's accurate and sourced, so I'm not sure if any other criteria would be required. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CAT: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." I don't see any third-party, reliable sources referring to John Wayne as a "white supremacist." It's certainly not a term that's "commonly and consistently" used to describe John Wayne. Take a look at the other names in the category in question (Warren Jeffs, Dylann Roof, etc.). John Wayne is primarily know (i.e. "defined") by his Academy Award-winning acting career, not for (allegedly) being a white supremacist. Not to mention the fact that it's very, very debatable whether or not he actually was a white supremacist, the only real argument for that pretty much hinges on one out-of-context quote made near the end of his life. Put it this way - people looking for biography articles on the type of people represented in that category are not going to be looking for John Wayne's article. Remove it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate whether or not he was what he claimed to be. But the fact is you're right about Wikipedia's standard for categorizing pages. So I won't revert the removal of that category. I'm sorry, I was in the wrong on that one. Alexander Levian (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories should reflect the articles. As it is, the category reflects the content of the article. So maybe the discussion should be whether the quote in the article should be removed. But until a good reason to remove the quote is presented, I have to oppose removing it. Palmer2015 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons I listed at the beginning. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

He believed that the black man should be educated to the level of whites and then when they were fully educated given full equality. TO say that John Wayne was a KKK type white Supremacist would be like saying Adolph Hitler was a friend of the Jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:28FE:81C1:CFFB:5099 (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * KEEP, if not too late. Greetings, everyone. This should settle the white supremacy question, from the 1971 Playboy Magazine interview between Wayne and  Richard Warren Lewis ---


 * "WAYNE: With a lot of blacks, there's quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can't all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.


 * PLAYBOY: Are you equipped to judge which blacks are irresponsible and which of their leaders inexperienced?
 * WAYNE: It's not my judgment. The academic community has developed certain tests that determine whether the blacks are sufficiently equipped scholastically. But some blacks have tried to force the issue and enter college when they haven't passed the tests and don't have the requisite background.


 * PLAYBOY: How do they get that background?
 * WAYNE: By going to school. I don't know why people insist that blacks have been forbidden their right to go to school. They were allowed in public schools wherever I've been. Even if they don't have the proper credentials for college, there are courses to help them become eligible. But if they aren't academically ready for that step, I don't think they should be allowed in. Otherwise, the academic society is brought down to the lowest common denominator.


 * [ ... ]


 * PLAYBOY: Can blacks be integrated into the film industry if they are denied training and education?
 * WAYNE: It's just as hard for a white man to get a card in the Hollywood craft unions.


 * PLAYBOY: That's hardly the point, but let's change the subject." [They then go on to discuss Wayne's not dissimilar opinions on First Americans.]
 * Source: "John Wayne: Playboy Interview / MAY 1971"


 * Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This interview of John Wayne on the topic of minorities, race, and civil rights is interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycU4_Fqne5M 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F598:FB47:3469:A1E6 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Peter here with a new idea: I suppose John Wayne's wiki article doesn't need a Category called, "White Supremacist" (or Supremacy), but given all the news lately (Mar 4 2019) about the 1971 Playboy interview article and subsequently Orange County discussing dropping his name from their airport, perhaps this wiki is overdue for one of those sub-sections called, "Controversy!" As it stands now, the "1971 Playboy interview" section with the article clearly demonstrating Wayne's documented homophobic and racist remarks, is buried as the 2nd or 3rd scrolled-down-to screen in the innocuous Category, "Political Views." By design, by his fans? Vid2vid (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * in general section titles should be as short as possible, so they don't need to be overly detailed. Keeping that in mind, controversy is subjective. But you can include such language in the text if supported by reliable resources. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that the article needs a controversy section. The 1971 Playboy interview subsection has as much relevant information as the 'political views' section that it is under. There are obviously pockets of his fans and supporters that don't want to acknowledge this interview or want to disregard it as out of context. I also want to open up discussion on the matter of context. His son suggested these quotes were taken out of context but he provides no evidence for his claim. Does that claim just get ignored on that premise? 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:A005:F9EA:AD85:445A (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

another interview
I found this interview of John Wayne when I searched "John Wayne racist" on Youtube. The comments he makes in this video are on topics of race and civil rights. The comments he makes seem to be racist, though I'd like to have this claim made in an NPOV way. I think this video should be included within his controversy section. Can anyone provide the source of the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycU4_Fqne5M

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F598:FB47:3469:A1E6 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter here. I too saw the above YouTube interview video when searching YouTube similarly, after reading this SacBee.Com article. I think this casual outdoors interview clip should be included in the, "External Links" section if it can be sourced and validated. By the way, I'm guessing the interviewer is Louis Theroux! Vid2vid (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would advise against adding links to YouTube clips as they will likely be deleted on copyright grounds. If you know the original program the video came from, you can certainly cite it in the article though. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, I agree with you that we should delete the section on white supremacy. Yes, it comes from a reliable source. But I feel it hurts John Wayne's reputation. He was an older man that lived most of his life before Civil Rights. It was the only life he knew. I feel we should not judge him for that. Granted, what he said was very wrong and I do not agree with anything he talked about in his interviews. Just looking at his reputation as a whole Jmmonty16 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

wrong height
You list John Wayne as 5 ft 6 inch. You have it backwards. He was 6 ft 5 inches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6B09:4800:2D1E:D699:ED02:4629 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Spanish people are Hispanic
The phrasing about his wives is a bit odd, given the word "Hispano" comes ultimately from the word Hispania, which is where we get the word Hispanic, not to mention how the US census defines it. If the person editing it doesn't know what the ancestry, but that it's Spanish speaking but not from Spain, wouldn't Latina or Latin American be more appropriate? . I promise, I'm not trying to be difficult, but it is phrased very odd. 45.17.195.157 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Mario Morrison" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mario Morrison. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Stalin
The relevant passage in Montefiore's article is:
 * Westerns with Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable were also favourites. Stalin the solitary, pitiless and Messianic egocentric seemed to associate himself with the lone cowboy riding shotgun into town to deal our brutal justice. Hence, he liked director John Ford's work - and John Wayne.


 * Khrushchev recalled how Stalin would ideologically criticise cowboy movies - and then order more. But, in spite of his enjoyment of the films, one source claimed that Stalin once declared at the end of a showing that Wayne, a vociferous anti-Communist, was a threat to the cause and should be assassinated.


 * Whether Stalin was speaking drunkenly in the early hours, or whether he meant what he said, such was his power that, either way, the order was quite likely to be executed. Assassins were supposedly sent to LA but failed to kill Wayne before Stalin's death. When Khrushchev met "Duke" in 1958, he told him "that was the decision of Stalin in his last mad years. I rescinded the order."

This is really speculative and doesn't mention Soviet archives. I will amend the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious Lack of Talk Items
The discussions I'm looking for should be visible on the Talk page! Please restore them immediately. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They can be found in the Archives above.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Wayne
This article is a redirect for the search term Brendan Wayne, but "Brendan Wayne" is mentioned nowhere in the article.

Either Brendan Wayne should be at least a subtopic here, or else the redirect should be removed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we actually have a source for his supposed conversion to Roman Catholicism? PatGallacher (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Marion Mitchell Morrison Documentation
Just to add to the general confusion about John Wayne's actual middle name, he filled out his draft registration card as Marion Mitchell Morrison. Those with Fold or Ancestry accounts may view the actual form as he filled it out on 16 Oct 1940. --MAJArkay (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Colorized photos
I've reverted out all the colorized photos that were uploaded and replaced by EatPay3, for a couple of reasons. The few I looked at were not the highest quality colorization. The originals were black and white, and the only information that color adds is artificial information as to the color itself, which is a bit of a guess. This is almost WP:OR, if not completely OR. I'm not against using colorized photos or modified photos for some photos, but to change the entire article distracts rather than enhances. Rather than wait to see if the editor follows the WP:BRD process, I wanted to start the discussion now. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, adding the link to https://imagecolorizer.com/colorize.html and USING that service to colorize all the photos, is absolutely improper, although it does explain the low quality. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Colourized black and white pictures literally give the reader a false picture of a topic, which an encyclopaedia should not be doing. Colourization should have a proper methodology and particular illustrative purpose, which is not the case here. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that when the heuristically-generated colourization gets Lucille Ball's hair colour quite wrong as it does at File:With Lucille Ball in I Love Lucy, 1955 1.jpg, clearly the methodology for all of these uploads is very faulty indeed. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dennis and here.  The original (B&W) photos are the originals, and thus the best representation of the topic. The only place I can envision using the "colorized" pics would be in a topic that was discussing the colorization; such as The Dick Van Dyke Show: Now in Living Color! or our Miracle on 34th Street colorization section. — Ched (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2018 and 16 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afwolf321.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

White supremacist
To be clear, John Wayne does not belong in that category. I know, the interview, what he said clearly is not what the modern definition is. If anyone wants to add it back, start a site wide RFC to settle the question, but historically, he was not categorized that way, which is the status quo. If you don't understand the difference in word usage then and now, look it up. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That weak justification uses the word "modern" (of course without a word of explanation) to limit the definition, while also using the framing "historically" to limit the meaning, when the man just said he believes in white supremacy. As is so often the case, the bit about "word usage" is a projection.  The claim or implication that someone must be a card-carrying member of the KKK to be a "white supremacist" is false.  It's a simple phrase with an obvious meaning.  Regardless of the exact minutia or scale of extremism.
 * This is like saying a Nazi wasn't racist because "that was the status quo; they just said some stuff that wasn't considered bad then like it is today! Therefore, it's not bad, and shouldn't be called racism, because people reading today will think that means he's bad when people AT THE TIME didn't think that!"  It's transparently ridiculous to most people reading.  It's a surprising contortion and magical way of denial.  For example: a con-artist may not have "historically" been "categorized" as a con-artist, if the con wasn't unmasked until later.  Fortunately, as everyone knows, we don't base encyclopedia entries on the common understanding of people from 50 or 100 years ago...which is irrelevant to the John Wayne example anyway.
 * Note the strangeness of a person demanding a site-wide RFC to warrant the inclusion of a descriptor that was self-applied by a person with a clear meaning in context and with explicit details (not just about white and black people in America but also supporting the foreign invasion and destruction of Vietnam and the genocidal taking of the country of America from Native people). RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Was John Wayne ( the duke ) a homosexual
Was John Wayne ( the duke ) a homosexual 120.20.141.137 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the nuclear testing that caused his cancer?
He was exposed to fallout on the set of The Conqeror. is there a reason that's not here? 76.128.167.220 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo with Indonesian actors
Why are their eyes so weird? It gives me the heebie jeebies. It should be removed and if not, at least an explanation for the strange nature of the photo. 2607:F598:B40A:370:B8FD:181C:C575:524E (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone add more?
I feel as if there is not enough information. Can someone add a list of all the movies he was in? Thanks! 2001:48F8:7052:71F:973F:9CCD:2D78:9746 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We already have the article John Wayne filmography. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)